There are various views on the nature and definition of money, currency and cash which has substantially changed over time. The post How to explain ‘new’ things like bitcoin … provides some thoughts on this topic. It is very difficult to talk about all these terms as the definitions incorporate specific perspectives.

This essay proposes to create a Swiss national blockchain. A blockchain allows to track and change ownership of digital assets without the need of a central authority or intermediate. The exchange is peer to peer and cryptographically secured. Money is a key ingredient when values are exchanged and hence a blockchain infrastructure should contain some form of it to unleash the full potential.

“Such blockchain infrastructure, carried jointly by all Swiss cantons, will have an equivalent catalyst effect as the initial introduction of the railway system or the creation of the Gotthard tunnel during the age of industrialization. The Swiss national blockchain will enable local as well as foreign entities and all people with an interest and/or business relation with Switzerland to hold genuine Swiss cryptocurrency and/or execute transactions via legal compliant smart contracts.”

On this blockchain environment a cryptocurrency bound to the Swiss franc controlled by the SNB is envisioned:

“The introduction of Swiss cryptocurrency “Crypto Franc”, bound to the issued fiat Swiss Franc by the Swiss National Bank (SNB), revolutionizing digital payment capabilities. The national blockchain will enable and bring the Swiss industry(s) to the international forefront of the digital age.”

In her speech, Andréa M. Maechler commented on aspects of the proposal:

“A more prominent role for central banks in this end-customer business area is currently a subject of debate, amid calls for ‘digital central bank money for the general public’. The SNB opposes this idea. Digital central bank money for the general public is not necessary to ensure an efficient system for cashless payments. It would deliver few advantages, but would give rise to incalculable risks with regard to financial stability.”

“Which technologies and solutions ultimately prevail on this solid foundation should in principle be left to the market to decide, however. This division of roles between central banks and commercial banks epitomises our current two-tier financial system. It contributes to the stability of the system, while allowing sufficient leeway for innovation.”

Both are for sure valid points – but again perspective matters. If a “Crypto Franc” is seen as a modern form of cash then not a lot would really change. The SNB controls the amount of cash in circulation and it would continue to control the amount of cryptographic cash which could be safely kept and exchanged using a blockchain infrastructure.

Introducing cryptographic cash could have an impact on the financial system as it would allow people to keep their cash safe – within your e-wallet on a blockchain instead of your existing cash account in the bank. With a cash account the client gets a repayment promise by the bank in turn the bank can use the amount from this account for other business (e.g. mainly lending). The value of the repayment promise depends on the trust in the bank while the trust in the Crypto Franc depends on the trust into the currency.

Thus issuing cryptographic cash is not of the interest of the bank when ownership and value is no longer with the bank but with the individuals. Regardless if a cryptographic currency is introduced, the prevalent systemic risk will continue as long as there is still book money or money created though credit. As the adoption of cryptographic currency increases, it will eventually reduce the systemic risks as commercial banks need to compete for such currency of clients. Clients will need to make an explicit decision when putting Crypto Francs onto an account which means transferring ownership to the bank against a repayment promise. They need to assess the risk(s) whether a bank is able to meet its repayment promise. On the other side the bank can provide return on investment where such transparency would rather de-risk the system invalidating some of the arguments stated by the SNB.

“The SNB will keep a close watch on developments to ensure that it always remains able to assess their potential impact on the financial system in good time.”

This sounds given the context to passive. The SNB needs to active in the developments to gain the required experience. Observers will typically be late. Being late means becoming defensive and reactive. The SNB in my view should be active and engaged in building the best possible future for Switzerland and its financial system.

The ‘No’ by the SNB feels premature influenced by past paradigm rather than by the current developments and the needs of the future. One aspect became prevalent from all the statements across the various parties engaged in the thought exchange is the complexity of the topic. It is a complex network problem and requires much more thoughts and discussions. It is key to have these exchanges in a frequent but immediate manner in order to come to conclusions before other organizations/entity(s) may take over and suddenly provide “the” new form of money pushing organizations like the SNB into a reactive rather than proactive position.

Transparency is the new currency – people estimate transparency. Its about enabling people to reach their goals independent of the provider and about being informed in good and in bad times.

Openness is the new norm – we are living in a network economy. Openness is the key to unleash the combined potential of all services in the network. Closed and monolithic systems are relicts of the past.

Holistic services – users want to have an end to end service and an broad overview. There is just the choice of providing it or let somebody else do it.

Simplicity – the different pricing schemes used by the various service providers are hard to understand for the consumer. But all this complexity can be hidden using smart technology – either by offering a flat rate scheme which enables general usage or by simply billing the actual consumption with the optimal price for the consumer.

These points are very true for a mobility provider and also for financial services and other industries as the relate to big shifts in society. There is one huge difference – the SBB has a huge logistic challenge with a lot of infrastructure which is required to realize the desired degree of mobility. Financial services companies in essence just deal with information and have a simpler problem to solve.

I also would like to highlight a few other aspects which I found very interesting:

Empowerment – the people who are in contact with the users must be empowered to solve problems in creative ways. They see the problem and they can directly engage and solve them with their creativity. The SBB has allocated a budget at discretion for the ‘railway companions’ – this are the people in the train who make sure that the travelers have a smooth journey. This empowerment of employees at the point where the company engages with the clients is just cool.

Team – the rail clean organization is now a part of SBB again and wears he SBB logo. In more an more automated railway stations they are often the only people. Now the wear an SBB logo again and can help support travelers in case of problems. This is a win-win situation as the job has become more interesting and as clients have a further human touchpoint with the brannd.

Development – all roles are changing due to the evolution of the environment and the technology. It is of strategic importance to think about the roles and their evolution paths. SBB grows and moves together with its employees into the future of mobility.

Data – SBB as a provider collects a lot of data about its users. Monika stressed that the data belongs to the client and not SBB. So the client decides when and how this information is used.

Again four aspects which can be translated very well into financial services. The empowerment of the staff is key, every employee is a part of the brand management and client data belongs to the client and not the service providers.

The word bank immediately depicts the picture of queuing in branches, limited quality products, and legacy processes ( e.g. time to process transfer or payments, etc…). The list goes on and on whether it is overdraft charges, processing/ service fees, overseas call centre. Although in the past, prior to the digital revolution, communication and processing were performed physically and was an important valued service appreciated by its consumers (Change is inevitable, Importance of a brand’s digital behaviour). However in the digital age, this will change with the introduction of financial capabilities not through new capabilities from existing incumbent banks but by new players outside the financial sector.

What will these players offer? Will they offer radically different products, new approach(s) to customer service and radically different ways of integrating to the customer’s ecosystem offering customers genuine and value added financial services? Or will these new ventures, like many of our existing banks, simply pay lip-service to such ideas?

What would we expect these new ventures to provide? To say the least the following:

Fewer but relevant and value-based products base on the customer’s preferences. Keep it simple, make it fun, empower the customer.

Financial services anywhere anytime (Omni-digital). Ubiquitous and available when we need any forms of financial services through the customer’s ecosystem. Services that interstate with their connected life.

Personalized services and recognition. Knowing the customer personally. Listening to the customer

QR code a standard for payments where payments happens instantly with limited to no infrastructure required

Work the way customers work. Be where they are, be there all hours, respond now.

Be the kind of financial services that I want to work with: be involved.

The world continously evolves and changing exponentially (see Change is inevitable ….). Not long ago the pace in companies was much slower. Propagation of information took time and the production of goods was typically labor intensive. The main challenge was organizing processes and workforce efficiently towards maximal outcome. These mechanisms which used to work well in the industrial age increasingly fail to produce beneficial effect in the information age.

Today’s environment routine work is automated and commoditised whereas engagement and creativity have become major assets of organizations. Great organizations have a shared goal, a state they want to reach. This reason d’etre has become more important than ever before. The vision is the mechanism to create a pull into one direction. A practical guide for creating plans, setting goals and objectives, making decisions, and coordinating and evaluating the work on any project, large or small. It is the source for motivation within the organization.

A vision captures clear and inspirational long-term desired change(s) resulting from an organization or program’s work. The vision is important – it expresses why the organization is required and provides guidance and direction to all who engage.

Alzheimer’s Association: A world without Alzheimer’s

It is obvious that the people engage here want to contribute to a world free of Alzheimer. They can do this however as they want as the vision does not say what has to be done. Everybody can contribute with his skills and abilities. People will have different perceptions on the importance of this organization, but nobody will be against this vision.

You may now say that this is just a simple and straight forward special case. Indeed – it should all start with a ‘why?’ which leads to people sharing the idea forming an organization. The vision is what makes this organization special and different from others.

Below is a list of vision statements of some other organizations

We create the technology to connect the world

We believe in what people make possible

Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.

To be Earth’s most customer-centric company, where customers can find and discover anything they might want to buy online

You engage and be part of only if you agree with the vision . Shaping a vision is not easy – it requires creativity, setting standards and enforcing clear decisions. People may like it, dislike it or find it irrelevant.

Many incumbent companies in the financial sector started with a clear vision. Some of these goals were reached and the companies just continued to do what they are doing. They just repeat what they have done in a better and more efficient way. Without having a vision it becomes difficult to be innovative and cost efficiency starts to become the main goal.

As a little exercise look at the web pages from incumbent organizations in the financial services industry and try to find their vision statement. It’s interesting that only a subset of the companies have one.

XYZ’s vision is to be recognized as a leading manufacturer of protective materials for high reliability applications throughout the world.

XYZ’s main commitment is to provide its customers with the best solutions possible

These two examples sound really trivial and the vision can be used for most types of organizations. Or is there a company who does not want to be reliable or provide the best solutions? This lack of purpose is dangerous – as there are many organizations with the same aim there is no evident reason, why this specific one is really required.

This lack of a vision is also dangerous as the new organizations all have vision – typically not talking about themselves but about the state they want to reach.

We believe everyone should be able to enjoy a healthy financial life.

We’re building this bank for you. We’ll learn and adapt to you, celebrating your individuality in every way.

By solving your problems, treating you fairly and being totally transparent, we believe that we can make banking better.

Compare the examples – which one is more appealing? Where would you like to engage as an employee or become a client? The incumbents benefit from their history as people are quite slow in changing their habits. But “time to change” is not the factor we should rely on in this “game” as when change happens it will be instantaneous.

Many incumbents relax on the fact that they are today systemic relevant – but the system could change and the relevance vanish with it. It feels much better to have a clear vision of the future than to rely on the past.

So it’s time for many incumbent organizations in financial services to hit refresh …

In all of our sophistication(s), humans react to the world in simple ways as our ability to cope with its complexity is limited. Do we seek simple solutions that hide or ignore the complexity?

Human senses are constantly producing far more data than their brains can process. Our brains cope with complexity by identifying important features and filtering out unnecessary detail(s). An example such as on seeing that the space you enter has four walls, a floor and a ceiling, you know you have entered a room and usually ignore the details. As individuals we deal with complexity by removing or hiding it. Our mental schemes are one way of doing that. Habits are another.

We also simplify complex decision-making by using received wisdom (e.g. advice of others, conforming to the beliefs and attitudes of what we may be associated to).

Society has many ways of managing complexity, one common approach is “divide and rule” approach to management which leads to hierarchical division of large organisations. Hierarchical breakdown introduces its own issues as the need to define early what are the decisive factors. Although structural changes can take place but only of rather limited value. Such systems have a tendency to go for the local optimum in each branch (see “The first step is key…”). Another approach is to define laws, rules, commercial standards which creates limits and restrictions.

New technologies are usually introduced to simplify our lives, but inevitably they have unexpected side effects on society. An example is the introduction of robotics/ labour-saving systems set off cascades of social change, such as the decline of the nuclear family. In addition instead of addressing and replacing the complex systems with more efficient adaptable ones, we add additional layers of complexity by keeping legacy systems and integrating them with the so-called new and simpler ones. On top of that there is a continuous addition of business process which makes consolidation almost impossible. It makes life simpler to rely on others to provide solutions to complex problems.

This inability to fathom complexity leads to a belief that any worthwhile solution to a situation must be simple. Any change introduces complexity into people’s lives. Rather than face issues that are complex, some retreat into denial, preferring to believe in a simpler future in which there is no change and continue with their paradigms.

In an era of post-truth and pseudoscience, avoid dismissing uncomfortable facts out of hand. Complexity arises from the richness of interconnections between things. Can we continue to ignore the wider context and the side effects of actions and ideas? The continuous adoption and extension of programs are vital to humans over time.

The second “eudiamonic” form seems to rise from longer, slower reward cycles associated with serotonin

The post states that we have been hacked and are now flooded with hedonistic fast reward happiness. We must break free when we go out to explore the boundaries of our box to finally start thinking and acting outside of it. Once we manage to leave the box this triggers new insights causing ‘eudiamonic’ happiness but also fear.

Fear is the natural response of the brain to new experiences. The brains main purpose is not to think but to keep us safe. Keeping us safe works best by following routines and patterns. So the safe place is in the box where we follow what used to work. To get outside and break with routines and habits requires explicit action, it’s hard.

And finally once you have left the box it will be hard to convince others to move. They comfortably sit in the box. The perceived good place is in the box, talking about better alternatives is perceived as negative. But routine tends to be boring – a convincing and exciting vision may help to get things going.
People often say that execution makes the difference. Maybe it is the decision to make the first step ….
References:

“Here’s what I find most fascinating: Eric never stops thinking about what’s possible and how he might stretch the boundaries of where and how his art finds its way into the world.”

“I don’t think out-of-the-box,” says Eric. “I believe in knowing where the box is, and going in and out at will. I don’t want to be pressured to always be edgy. Sometimes there are classic techniques that work best.”

Do you know what and where your box is? Do you know its boundaries? This is actually a very interesting and also challenging question. Do you know the boxes of the people you interact with or the boxes of team members at work?

Thinking and acting outside the box and experiencing the world from different perspectives with fresh eyes is increasingly important in our fast changing time. Start by thinking about your box(s) as you can only step outside the box if you understand the boundaries, the paradigms and habits which make the box your box.

“Thinking outside of the box allows you to get rewards outside of your reach.”